Let the voters decide if amendments are needed for Affordable Housing Overlay zoning
Affordable Housing Overlay zoning is moving forward in Cambridge without further adjustments, we read, “in large part because city staff wouldn’t have time to assess their impact before the zoning petition expires Oct. 29” (“Package of updates for affordable-housing law stays intact on the way to a final vote in October,” Sept. 12). But assessing the impact should have been done before the policy order for the change was introduced, kicking off the 90-day clock.
Since the municipal election is just around the corner, I urge the City Council to heed Planning Board questioning of “whether the council should wait for the original AHO’s built-in five-year review” and let the amendments expire so the incoming City Council can take it up again in the new session. This is the right thing to do as required by the oath of office to “impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent” on a city councillor.
City staff may not have the time to assess the impact of proposed amendments, but the Community Development Department will have time to establish baseline affordable-housing inventory; revise Envision Cambridge housing plans to set a realistic goal; and determine if changes to AHO zoning are warranted. If so, staff should assess the impact of potential changes and recommend changes with the least impact to the new council.
The state’s Subsidized Housing Inventory for Cambridge list 53,467 total year-round housing units, of which 6,896, or 12.9 percent, are subsidized.
Envision set the “share of housing production that is dedicated as affordable” between 2019 and 2030 to 25 percent, or “3,175 minimum net new affordable housing units.” Does it really make sense to have one out every four new housing units built to be subsidized? If so, we may have to live with 12- and 15-story buildings out of context, scattered around the AHO corridors and squares with no thoughtful, binding Planning Board reviews. Or would 25 percent growth of subsidized units from the baseline, or 1,724 new units, be more reasonable? That might be achieved by existing AHO tools and other creative, outside-the-box projects developed holistically by all stakeholders.
There are many such tools already in the toolbox, and there are many new and reused developments coming:
- Community Development lists a total 616 Affordable Housing Overlay Project units by nonprofit developers and WinnCompanies, a for-profit entity like the developer of the withdrawn 2072 Massachusetts Ave. project proposed under Chapter 40B laws. Not all of these may be counted, and CDD should update the list to identify new vs replacement subsidized units.
- There are 101 new Chapter 40B subsidized units coming in Rindge Commons Phase 1 and Phase 2 at 432 and 430 Rindge Ave. Inspectional Services does not maintain a list of comprehensive permit cases being developed; CDD’s housing division should provide an accurate count of Chapter 40B affordable-housing units that are not included in current counts of subsidized units.
- Inclusionary housing program developments such as 40 Thorndike St., which will have 48 IHP units. Community Development needs to identify other inclusionary units in the pipeline.
Among the possible tools that can be adopted:
- A commercial office/lab inclusionary housing program that would require large-scale developments seeking special permits to include ground-floor retail space; market-rate housing for office workers; and affordable housing for support staff with a ratio of affordable to market-rate units higher than standard inclusionary rules. This would be a real integrated work-life environment, and not only address affordable housing but also transportation issue for residents of the project.
- Visionary urban development at the 4-acre Buckingham Field that would include this form of CIHP, creating an integrated new village.
- A Cambridge Community Land Trust similar to the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative suggested by former city councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler.
Young Kim, Norris Street
The voters did decide. We elected a council where a majority was in favor of finding ways to increase housing supply. And guess what! We get to decide again in November whether we still feel good about this direction
This seems pretty obvious and self-serving, almost like something Mitch McConnell would do. When you don’t have enough support, you just suggest, ‘Let’s put off the vote until next year’, like McConnell did with Obama:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiSAbsQWkAExmfD.jpg:large
What’s the next op-ed? ‘Of course I want bicyclists to be safe, but what we really need is good governance, sensible policies, and more data collection rather than this bike lane’. Oh shoot, that one got stale.
Council terms are only two years. It’s already hard to get stuff done when you have to run for re-election every other year, and the makeup of the council changes often.
Mr. Kim is proposing what, that the council voluntarily stops governing in election years, so half their terms? In the fall of election years, an eighth of their terms? In the fall of election years but only for things he doesn’t like?
Mitch McConnell used this exact logic to justify blocking President Obama’s supreme court pick of Merrick Garland in 2016, and then opted not to apply it to Trump’s pick of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. It’s not pro-democracy. It’s anti-democracy.
I want to support Young Kim’s letter and add to the call for reasonable, commonsensical strategies of development for the affordable housing we all want for Cambridge. Ramming through this proposal for AHO Revision just because “there’s no time” for thorough vetting is a strategy that damages public trust and is deaf to community interests and concerns. We all want humane, generous, and consensual thinking behind development – not hot-headed name-calling and thoughtless programs which will line the pockets of developers by offering no setbacks, no greenspaces and no parking for those eligible for affordable housing – and remember that while housing is needed for unhoused people, the people eligible for this “affordable” housing are not those people.
Young Kim’s done his homework. His command of the numbers, his understanding of the tools available, his reasoned thinking on timelines and more make a ton of sense to me. This letter can be use as a cornerstone go-to document for anyone championing mid-rise, gentle-density construction. The math is clear and doesn’t obfuscate or mislead.
If there was ever a reason to let the amendments expire and resume negotiations until after November 7th, this letter is it.
If one or more of the current pro-AHO 2.0 councilors can’t offer a reasoned response to Young’s letter it must mean they know he is right.
All the more reason to shelve 2.0 until after November 7th.
Young Kim: Thank you!
Federico Muchnik
Candidate for City Council
federicoforcouncil.net
The election is about 10 days after October 29th. That’s a very short wait, and certainly justified given the potential impact of this amendment.
He’s not asking for a 10 day delay. He’s asking to wait until there’s a new council – meaning next year – because this one supports expanding the AHO, and he doesn’t. He wants to keep replaying the game until he gets an outcome he likes. That’s not how this works.
We’re not Mitch McConnelling this. The council gets to govern while they’re in office. They were elected by voters for a term of two years, not until they do something Mr. Kim doesn’t like.
Voters have spoken through their election of council members, who are now fulfilling their duties. You’re unhappy with the outcome, so should we delay to wait for one more favorable to you?
This resembles the cynical tactics seen in politics, akin to Mitch McConnell’s opposition to a judicial appointment. We must reduce this toxicity in politics and let elected officials govern.
The AHO was destined to pass the moment it was filed. This IS what people voted for. If people do not like what the council is doing you’ve an opportunity to vote in new people every two years. Unfortunately not many people pay attention or are that engaged. The few people who are engaged typically are bonkers. For those annoyed or scared by the AHO the “good news” is it’s likely to not do too much. For those thinking the AHO is getting it done you’re as annoying as the “nimby” folks you rush online to trounce. Thoughts and prayers.
The people doing the work, Cambridge Housing Authority and non-profit affordable homebuilders Just-A-Start and HRI, have spoken of the need for these amendments consistently for more than a year. They have even more expertise in affordable housing finance than CDD, so no useful purpose would be served by waiting.
And we already have waited—five years since Envision, plenty of time to see that we are not on pace to meet our affordable housing goal. Meanwhile, rents keep skyrocketing and the need for more affordable homes for Cambridge families continues to grow.
The people who want to wait seem to be the same people who opposed the original 100% Affordable Housing Overlay, so if they had their way, we would apparently wait forever while the number of unhoused and displaced residents would rise inexorably. Yet the sky didn’t fall when the AHO passed, and these amendments won’t cause the sky to fall either.
If we revise the Envision Cambridge affordable housing goal, we should increase it—3,175 new affordable homes was too low at the time, and it is too low now, with 22,500 households on the affordable housing waitlist—and around 4,500 households with a local preference.
I do agree with the author that CDD should endeavor to provide more information to the public on the number of new affordable homes. The AHO website lists total numbers of affordable homes when it should distinguish between new and renovated. Jefferson Park is 103 new homes and 175 rebuilt, while 116 Norfolk is 25 new homes and 37 renovated. Thus, the overall total number of new homes in the AHO pipeline is less than 400, none of which have yet opened to residents.
The need then is clear—we desperately need to adopt the amendments to the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay to put Cambridge back on track to meet its own affordable housing goals, and we need more aggressive goals to meet the needs of Cambridge families who may wait a decade for an affordable home in Cambridge.
Delay, delay, delay!
Or we could just build some housing. Market rate, income restricted, or social housing, I’ll take anything we can get. 5 minutes of shadows in the evening won’t negatively impact me, or if we’re being honest, anyone.
Of the 3k affordable units envision opined on there was supposed to be 9k market rate units to go with that … why isn’t anyone interested in that part?
filibuster, litigate, obfuscate. The voters spoke when they elected the city council two years ago.
Delay, delay, delay is the NIMBY strategy.
We need to build housing. People need homes. The council members were voted in to get this done. The people have already spoken.
The original AHO has succeeded but mostly in ways that were not anticipated – existing AHO sites doing dense infill projects – and I suspect there aren’t many such opportunities left. But if CDD doesn’t have the ability to study expected outcome of this year’s proposal that’s a big problem for me – seems more like making a political statement than a carefully thought out plan to actually increase the supply of affordable housing that we need.
Thank you to all who supported my position. And to all those who spoke in favor of the proposed AHO amendments (AHO2), could we please agree on
1) keeping the comments civil and not resort to name calling
2) using Envision Cambridge Housing Plan (Plan)and State’s Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) as our starting point. SHI, after all, is based on 2020 Census data and data provided by municipalities.
3) using accurate data and site the source.
PatrickWBarretton commented that “Of the 3k affordable units envision opined on there was supposed to be 9k market rate units to go with that”. Plan’s goal was for total housing stock to grow by 12,500 of which 25%, or 3125, would be affordable. Now, according to SHI, there were 6896 SHI units in 2020. Now, does 45% growth in SHIU’s over a decade seem achievable? Is it reasonable for the total housing stock to grow at 25% rate but affordable housing at almost double the rate?
Plan’s goal of 1 out of every 4 new housing construction be affordable is in effect increasing Cambridge Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance’s requirement for 20% of market-rate development to be affordable to 25% and applying it to all housing development. Is this reasonable or fair?
Cambridge Day reported that in the document on purchasing the Buckingham Field shown to Councillors, “there was a note that after three years the council would be able to use the land for any municipal use. (The term encompasses construction of affordable housing, city solicitor Nancy Glowa explained later.)” The time and effort spent on amending AHO Zoning Ordinance could have been used more effectively developing comprehensive urban design for this 4-acre site that would have affordable housing, open space, market rate housing and commercial space all integrated into a well laid out mini village. Has the City done any planning for this site yet?
I wish there was a way we can discuss this further off-line.
I agree name calling is usually best avoided. I just don’t see any name calling here.
Is the author talking about references to Mitch McConnell’s similar tactics? That’s not name calling. That’s just an unflattering (and accurate, I think) comparison. Putting it in the same category as inflammatory personal attacks (name-calling) is just an attempt to shut down reasonable criticism.
Jess, no, I am not talking about your refences to Mitch McConnell’s similar tactics. In fact, I am honored to be compared to such illustrious, high ranking and long-term public servant like him whether I agree with his politics or not.
But once again, let me remind everyone to check the facts before making any public comments. According to USA TODAY Obama had roughly 10 months left in his term when he nominated Garland as his Supreme Court nominee. Impartial Senate would have had plenty time to go through proper vetting and confirmation process in those 10 months. I am glad you didn’t compare me, dare I say, Trump who nominated Barrett on Sept 26, 2019, just 45 days before the election.
And yes, FrankD, I agree with you 100% that we must reduce this “toxicity in politics and let elected officials govern.” But toxicity is not from my rational analysis of available data but rather end-justifies-means, special interest driven politics as in the AHO and CSO debates. And I am all for letting City Councillors govern but govern “impartially” as they swore to do when they took the Oath of Office.
I never said I am against Affordable Housing; only against the process for it. AHO is not the only tool in the Affordable Housing toolbox and AHO alone can’t solve the housing crisis. It has to take into account of the impact Affordable Housing development would have on the vision of the future of our City. And take into account all the tools available as well as new innovative, holistic tools worked out together by all stakeholders.
Thank you Young for pointing out the importance of the City Council’s oath of office. That oath should preclude candidates from signing a pledge to do the bidding any interest group. To do so is a clear conflict of interest.
What about candidates who joined a lawsuit demanding the city remove bike lanes that the federal highway administration says improved safety for all road users?